inthestepsofTal: Fischer wouldnt have drewn so quickly here. As someone said, Fischer knew that if you played out a boring game to the end, funny things could happen. That was proved in his road to the world championship.

qskakaley: Why can't White play 10.Ng5 intending a fork on f7? OBVIOUSLY, Black is not going to allow this, but which is Black's best continuation? 10...Ke8 ? I am going to be honest, I feel like there HAS to be a way to exploit Black's open king and imprisoned rook on a8! Then again, Garry and many others have played the Berlin and haven't found the answer, so who am I to judge?

acirce: A short game but one of very high technical quality, at least from Black's side.

White has no advantage at all in the final position and even though there may be play left it's hard to see very realistic winning chances. Black had simply solved all his problems and it was time to offer a draw. Also considering the clock situation it was naturally accepted.

A very successful first game for Kramnik, gaining a fairly safe draw with Black and showing that the main weapon he had prepared with Black seemed to work. His seconds were terrified during the game and thought several times that Black's position was near a collapse and only survived by some kind of miracle but Kramnik didn't understand what they were talking about when they told him. But it is indeed fascinating to study how Black always has to be extremely precise in timing. Overall, the Berlin is an extremely interesting line full of the most intricate subtleties. It also gives rise to very aesthetically pleasing games. I wish Kramnik would start playing it again (unless of course the reason he stopped playing it is that he simply doesn't consider it as good as he used to).

Karpova: Vladimir Kramnik: <I had to get used to the conditions of the World Championship match. I wasn't looking at Kasparov and his reaction to the Berlin - I wasn't up to that, I had to get into the match, in conditions of colossal stress and excitement. With all the unexpectedness of the choice of the Berlin, Kasparov nevertheless knew the theory of this variation and followed the moves of a game that had been played a couple of months before the match.

I should point out that grandmaster Almasi became one of my main assistants, without realising it himself. He was the first to use the interesting plan with the retreat of the king to c8 rather than e8, he suggested it to me, as it were. I offered the draw in Game 1, it was important to me to hold my own, to show that I'd come out for the first World Championship game of my life, calmly made a draw and got into the match. It was still a very unfamiliar situation, like playing all your life for Lokomotiv and then coming out to play for Real Madrid in the final of the Champions League. Of course, you have to get used to the new situation, kick the ball a couple of times so they don't laugh at you. To understand and prove yourself that you're at that level, that you're worthy of it.>

kozo: <Cactus> Black is in absolutely no position to be taking the advantage, he has just fortified his position and blockaded white's pawn majority. The only way of playing on I can see other than just repeating moves is Rh5-h8-d8, where the exchanges don't seem to help.

percyblakeney: It isn't often Kramnik plays for a win with black, and in this position in a first match game against Kasparov it would have been surprising if he had wanted to play on. Topalov played to win with black in the first game in 2006 instead of taking the draw and that didn't end to well for him...

percyblakeney: Come to think of it, Kramnik has actually won not only the first game, but also his first games with black, in the matches against Leko and Topalov. Against Kasparov he won the second game, after this draw. It will be interesting to see if he once again gets a great start.

Quantitative mapping of this game between these players follows. Figures in brackets immediately after each move are the corrected engine evaluations generated on the forward slide that followed the initial reverse slide originating from the last move of the game after all moves had been inputted into the engine. Some evaluations are bolstered by analysis, while some are the result of further –occasionally multiple - slides in one or both directions. This smoothed out nearly all fluctuations in the engine’s evaluations, apart from in the opening.

General methods used are described in the bio of User: bridgeburner (at the top of this page).

Engine preferences are included throughout the game where they differ from players preferences except in the well trodden opening, where evaluation values are included for completeness rather than in the interests of complete accuracy which is not knowable in the opening.

Some analysis is included to provide some idea of the reason for the engine preferences where they didn’t coincide with the moves played. In this game, despite it having theoretical importance, the variations were not explored in depth (ie: move by move deep slide), and therefore the variations posted next to the engine preferences are a cut and paste of engine analysis, albeit an extremely deep ply cumulative result of sliding back and forth along the main line.

<Summary>

The first game was a typically cautious opening foray, with cautious probing by Kasparov to test Kramnik’s defence. After the opening novelty by Kramnik, the game quickly settled into a draw much to the relief of some of Kramnik’s excitable assistants. While the game may have had some razor wire variations, neither player erred. This game stabilized Kramnik’s confidence in himself as a credible challenger and provided the platform for his victory in the second game and ultimately, the match itself.

Minchin played <7…Ne4> and drew. While the stats show it is a reasonable defense, this move has been superceded by the now universally played text move, successfully introduced by Fritz Riemann in 1880 in his Berlin match against Emil Schallopp. Schallop’s response was <8. Qe2> which was met by <8…Nd5>, soon winning a pawn and eventually, the game.

GAME MOVE 8:

<8. Qxd8+> () <8…Kxd8> (0.13)

Müller: <This is an interesting and often discussed position. White has a vital extra pawn on the kingside, and Black cannot castle. In return, Black has the bishop-pair and no easily exploitable weaknesses. Opinions about the evaluation of the position are inconclusive. We will see if the discussion is taken up again in the course of this match.>

GAME MOVE 9:

<9. Nc3> (0.13)

Lasker experimented with 9. g4 in a 1901 simul and was soundly beaten: Lasker vs A Y Hesse, 1901. Unsurprisingly, it never caught on and there is no record in the database of this move being played again.

GAME MOVE 9:

<9…Bd7> (0.13)

According to the database, this move debuted in this game. The earliest response to 9. Nc3 was 9…h6 in Wemmers vs F Riemann, 1880, a move which was played almost universally until it was gradually supplanted in late 20th century theory.

GAME MOVE 10:

<10. b3> (0.03)

10. h3 has since become more popular, and if results are any indication, is a better move.

Müller: <Kasparov has 1:13 remaining vs. 1:48 for Kramnik, which tells us who stayed in the main line of his preparation longest. The position is a bit better for White, but the black bishops are not easy to overcome.>

Müller: < Kasparov has only 39 minutes left, which indicates that he has had problems finding a plan that would bring serious danger to his opponent. 16.Nf3!? 16 Ng5 was also possible, and takes advantage of the fact that 15...h5 has weakened the g5-square.>

Müller: < Closing up the position is advantageous for White. Black’s bishop-pair is better in open positions.>

GAME MOVE 17:

<17…a5> (+0.20)

Müller: <Kramnik wants to open the a-file for his rook with an eventual a5-a4.>

GAME MOVE 18:

<18. a4> (+0.00)

Müller: <Kasparov nails down the queenside in typical fashion. Black can no longer mobilize his pawn majority because of the doubled pawn (after ...c6 and ...b5, White simply stays put), while at the same time Kasparov is able to get a passed pawn on the kingside in the long run. Kasparov has 37 minutes left and strolls across the stage looking confident, while Kramnik, who has much more time on his clock, seems quite uncomfortable in his seat.>

<CONCLUSION> The biggest jump in engine evaluations came with Kramnik’s innovation at <11…Kc8> (+0.33), which lead to a well-analyzed position that he was able to hold without apparent difficulty. In fact, Kasparov used up far more time in the opening.

There were no errors as defined in the Project, ie: no evaluation jumps of 0.60 or more.>

visayanbraindoctor: Kramnik may have seized the psychological advantage with this game. Kasparov probably had spent tons of effort preparing for the Petrov; and Kramnik just trashed all these efforts.

The psychological hit on Kasparov must be understood in the context that Kasparov's greatest weapon in his career was his unsurpassed opening preparation. His repertoire as white nearly always got him into at least equal middlegames wherein he had room to use his considerable native skills to beat his opponents. Suddenly he realized that Kramnik had neutralized this white advantage, that winning with white would be a real problem. This game was drawish with little room for struggle right out of the opening.

On the other hand, Kramnik's morale must have been tremendously boosted by this game. He realized that he he might just have deprived Kasparov of his biggest weapon.

Now both players understood that Kasparov could not rely on any opening surprise anymore to get into the kind of middlegames that he liked. Kasparov would have to work hard over the board to obtain a winning advantage with white for the rest of the match.

In contrast, in the 1995 WC match Kasparov crushed Anand when he repeatedly obtained advantageous middle games right out of openings that Anand mishandled. Kramnik, who was Kasparov's second in that match, understood this completely; and knew that depriving Kasparov of any opening advantage would double his chances for a possible match victory.

As the match progressed and it became apparent that Kasparov really could not derive any significant advantage over the Berlin, his morale must have kept on sliding down, while Kramnik's confidence kept climbing up.

Kasparov on Kasparov: Part I

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other users.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.